Phenomenal. One of the best sci-fi movies I've seen. It actually makes you contemplate life and where we are going as humans while introducing a premise somewhat similar to that of Arrival. The movie is so good I can actually imagine a first contact being something like this. I rarely get so invested in a movie as with this one.

Having seen the trailers for the sequel, I gave this a spin. It wasn't quite what I expected, but that's a good thing. A tightly focused, white knuckle crime triller full of moral ambiquity and bleak atmosphere. Good performance from Blunt and Del Toro. Great cinematography from Roger Deakins, as usual. I've heard this movie described as the Apocalypse Now of the War on Drugs, and while I don't think it quite reaches those heights, I can sort of see it.

I only watched this a couple of days ago. Had to do in three stints because is just wasnt that interesting. How can an FBI agent, after things like Operation Condor, not think that this type of shenanigans was going on? Why are these black ops guys trying to be anything by the book? Do cartels normally go around with pretty much no security? Action sequences? Blink and you miss it.

Moral ambiguity and the extreme lengths and convolutions they had to go through to get rid of a bad guy made it alright. Good performances and cinematography. 7/10

Have no idea why this got a sequel unless it was made cheaper than the first.

Spiderman Homecoming: Peter is trying his harest to get found out. Stark is a complete idiot. He has this young idealist and deliberately doesn't give him enough information and is suprised he fails. Way to lean into that Baby Boomer who thinks all Millennials are stupid stereotype. Certainly was a movie about Spiderman blundering into things.

That car ride though was pretty cool. Actually made Toombes seem pretty observant and smart. I was it was shown with the heist too.

Really violent rape revenge movie, the debut of french director Coralie Fargeat. It's a pretty promising movie, while it does have some issues, mostly its characters being a bit shallow, it was still quite entertaining, the action was extremely well executed and the photography, while a bit static, was excellent. I adore the colours and textures, in its best moments it got close to the sizzling, hyper saturated images of a Michael Bay film. I think what I especially like about the movie is its protagonist. At the beginning she seems like the type of woman who, in any other movie, would be a random accessory to some gangsterboss or rich playboy, one who would likely have no lines and if she has a name it'D be "Candy" or "Bunny". Revenge turns her into the lead of an action movie and lead actress Matilda Lutz portrays every step of her journey, from the nondistinct party girl to the relentless angel of revenge very convincingly.

I think this movie deserves a place in the cultural lexicon. The story follows Saul, part of the Sonderkommando, a unit of concentration camp prisoners who were forced to aid in the disposal of gas chamber victims(among other things move the bodies, scrub the floors, empty clothes).

While not the worst film I've seen this year, this would rank among the most disappointing. Partly because of all the hype it got (from critics and audiences alike), partly because it came off the excellent Rogue Nation. And to be fair, Fallout isn't bad. What it IS however, is rote and predictable. And it's this, more than anything, that sinks the film. I'm going to be giving spoilers, but trust me, if you've seen the trailers, you've seen this film basically.

More than anything else, Fallout feels like a retreat of Rogue Nation, but is a much lesser film for it, because it stumbles where Rogue Nation succeeded. Both of these problems can be boiled down to August Walker, a.k.a. John Lark, a.k.a. Henry Cavill's moustache. I say this because even if you haven't seen the trailers, his role as a double agent is seen from a mile away - about as soon as he gives the phone to Erika that supposedly has information on it incriminating Ethan. I spent my time hoping that the film wouldn't be this predictable, that it would do a 180 or a reveal within a reveal, but no, Walker is yet another rogue agent in a franchise crawling with them. While Rogue Nation kept you guessing about Ilsa's true allegiance, and the first film was a giant mole hunt, Fallout makes no such effort for Walker. Subtlety isn't a word you'd use to describe him.

So, okay then, how does he stack up as a villain in of himself? Well, rather poorly actually, even by the standards of the franchise. He's basically a poor man's Solomon Lane, who's also in this film, and also a far more compelling antagonist than Walker even if he's the secondary villain. Again, compare Walker to Lane in Rogue Nation. While not exactly a film deep on themes, Rogue Nation at least toyed with the idea/theme that letting intelligence agencies operate without oversight is probably a bad idea, considering that the Syndicate was formed with carte blanche-level authority, and Lane's apparent crusade was described as the result of him being given leeway to operate as he saw fit. With Lane, you at least could understand how he'd got to the point where he was, that as an agent of British Intelligence, he'd become so fed up with the world and the system that he'd gone rogue, taking the Syndicate with him. While this isn't the most original plot point in the world, it at least added to Lane's character. But Walker? No idea. He supposedly has the same goals as Lane (to an extent), but why he attempts to starve one third of the world's population of water is never really explained. We don't know how he got to the spot he did. Even Phelps indirectly explains why he turned against the IMF in the first film, but Walker's a cipher. He's yet another rogue agent for Ethan to fight.

Speaking of Ethan himself, let's look at his character arc, or rather, lack of it. Admittedly this is something that reviewers sold me on as being in the film, so maybe I set myself up for disappointment. So while Tom Cruise is getting old, this is never shown in the film itself - it's no Skyfall in that sense. Okay, fair enough. However, there are certain things that are in the film that I do think warrant addressment. For instance, there's a running motif of Ethan making up plans in the fly, with the phrase "I'm working on it." I assumed that this was working up to something, to perhaps call out the idea that plans can't always be made on the fly and succeed, but nup. Likewise, the trailer sets up a whole "needs of the many vs. needs of the few," but this isn't explored either. Ethan doesn't really trade "one life for millions" in regards to the plutonium, he tries to save both, and is outsmarted. It isn't a moral issue, and it isn't one that's explored at all. At the end, we have Erika monologuing that, paraphrased, Ethan was in the right. Because god forbid there be any ambiguity in this film.

There's minor things. White Widow is Max's daughter, which is a connection that's never explored and completely irrelevant to the plot (as opposed to Julia, who does have a nice bookend). There's also some awkward pacing/editing issues and expositional dialogue that feels like they were suited for the trailers rather than how actual humans talk. There's the sense that all the other protagonists are playing second fiddle to Ethan, even more than usual (Hanley dies, and it's barely relevant, not even to the characters outside the scene its' in). But of course, that's secondary isn't it? You want to know how the stunts are? And to that I say fine, but I don't care that Tom Cruise is really HALO jumping or dangling off a helicopter when the stakes/plot aren't keeping me invested.

So, at the end of the day, this isn't a bad film. It's decently shot and paced. But what shoots this film down for me is the predictability, and the feeling that I'm just watching a lesser Rogue Nation. Given that the Apostles (who barely feature) are still around, I've got a bad feeling that Paramount wants its own Spectre (as in the organization), to which I say, "no." Lane's still alive, but we don't need to see him again. At this point, I'm more curious as to what the franchise could do with a new lead. Not saying Cruise has to go, but at this point, it feels like we're going through the motions. New blood and all that.

Kinda boring, especially after the main plot thread is revealed. Looks terrific at times, but it doesn't have much going for it apart from that. Alien life is cheap except when it looks a bit too human -- then you mourn.

Well written, funny, the direction is solid with a terrific cast and compelling themes. Then it gets really weird around the 3rd act. Might want to think more on it. Did think a few characters got forgotten until the last 15 minutes, but didn't annoy me a lot.

If you asked me to rate this film based only on its first half, it would easily score 8/10. However, something happens in the second half that drags it down for me. Not too much, but it's noticable.

Thing is, the premise of this film is, while not complicated, engaging enough. True to its title, it's mostly set on a vinyard in Burgundy, France. There's three children, now all grown up, with the eldest having returned home after a ten year absence, going to places like Argentina and Australia. Coming back, turns out his father's on his last legs (and dies soon after), his sister's running the vinyard, and his brother's married with a child, albiet having to deal with his in-laws. So, father dies, and they need to decide what to do with the vinyard, as they need to pay a 500,000 euro inheritance tax to obtain it. Note that this doesn't stop them from continuing to operate somehow for a full year - apparently they have a good lawyer.

​So, yes, this is very much family drama/introspection. However, there's certain elements in the film that don't really go anywhere. For instance, there's a montage of them doing up the house in order to sell it but keep the vinyard. They never sell the house, and their do-over of the house is never brought up again. In essence, you could cut this sequence from the film, and miss nothing. Similarly, our protagonist has a partner and son in Australia (whom eventually come over to France and make up with him), but he hits it off with one of the vinyard workers (the ones who come in temporarily to harvest the grapes. This never amounts to anything. She's never seen again or mentioned again, and I'm left to ask if some scenes were cut. There's certain elements in the story that feel underdeveloped, but they don't start to hit home until the second half. In fairness, this could be intentional...sort of, in that the film takes place over a year. It starts in summer, then by the time we hit winter, the film has slowed down, and it's here that it begins to drag. So winter...slow...intentional? Maybe. But does it work? If that was the intent, not as well as I think the writer/director might have been going for.

Still, film's all around solid. This is from someone who has no desire to drink wine (don't like the taste), let alone make it, but luckily one's ability to like this film isn't dependent on viticulture (or shouldn't be). So, could have been better, but still, all around solid. Say what you want about the French and their cheese-eating ways, but they've given me some solid films this year. :P

How it EndsConsidering I wouldn't have watched this if it didn't have Forest Whitaker in it, and considering the last two films I fell for the same trick were Taken 3 and Rogue One, I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't be so hasty to stalk him in this weird manner from now on. Perhaps the title of this, let's charitably call it a film, was secretly hinting at the dissolution of this sordid compulsion.

Within the first scene, being a simple conversation, it was apparent that this was not going to be a gripping masterclass in direction, but fine...its not wise to judge early and all that. We got ourselves a poor man's Paul Walker (who isn't particularly inspiring himself either) as the main protag who you'd see usually as an uninteresting side character in a low-effort TV series. We got a hint of something enjoyable when Forest is on screen, fuck knows what his character is called though, or anybody else, it's not important, actually not much is considered important for the viewer here. We got some vague problem that might be a countrywide EMP, might be aliens, might be the hand of an extremely bored and cunty God, it doesn't matter...what matters is that protag and Forest go on a journey to find protag's other half, oh and Forest is her dad I think; hijinks ensue! Except...they don't.

What happens instead is a load of meandering bollocks providing acute lessons in how to direct completely unexplained random events in the dullest method imaginable with the dullest character interaction imaginable. The hand of the extremely bored and cunty God throws in various weather and environmental hazards with all the threat of a malfunctioning fairground ghost-train ride. Humans are introduced and indiscriminately given the "bad" or "good" character reaction to our protag's slog. The film thinks that not explaining any of this makes it intriguing, but it's all so flat and dull with nothing and nobody to care about that the only reason I continued watching was to see what bullshit excuse they were going to come out with so that at least maybe I could get a laugh out of this trite. Toward the end, I was passionately expressing to my TV "just fucking tell me already! You've got nothing!...Nothiiiing! please give me something at least!"

And then it ends on some real laughably stupid unconvincing cgi shit.

Just before that point I had left the room for some food and drink in aimless resignation, so if the film had any wonderful revelation during my period of foraging, I could not care any less. There were far more interesting stories to be found in the fridge.

In total, it deserves a "What the hell, Forest?? Is money that bad for you?" Out of ten. Then again he did die unceremoniously halfway through, so evidently he knew better than me when to fold.

An interesting attempt at making an incredibly restrained, downplayed variation on the superhero genre, mostly carried by Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis. Very much worth seeing just for the brave attempt of making a superhero movie without any of the visual elements usually associated with superhero movies, bringing it into the real world in a way that Christopher Nolan could only dream of. At the end of the day I'm very happy that I saw it. I know that Split is a semi-sequel to it and I'm looking forward to seeing that too. At face value it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would demand its own franchise, on the other hand there's certainly some promise in there.

Its a look at a modern cult, produced and narated by one of the people that eventualy left it and with interviews with others that had the courage to leave it.

Its a good look at how these kind of predators prey on people, and why people flock to them. Its not that they are stupdid but they come to them our of a desperate search for meaning or purpose and after a while they are brainwashed into being subsurviant and it can tale alot to break them out of this.

Well this was a letdown. Maybe I should stop going to the Hoyts at Eastgardens, because apart from Deadpool 2, every film I've seen there has been average at best.

So, anyway, this is a comedy, centering on a woman duo titled "The Breaker Upperers" - basically a duo who helps individuals break up with their partners when they can't (or won't) do it themselves. Not a bad premise after all, since the tactics can include dressing up as police officers and informing one of the couples that their partner is dead. The dialogue in of itself is reasonably good, being reminiscent of stuff like 'Hunt for the Wilderpeople.' It might be a Kiwi thing, because the style of dialogue seems quintissentially Kiwi. Or something.

However, unlike Hunt, which was good, this film...isn't. Because part of the plot involves one of the duo (36) dating one of their clients (a 17 year old), and getting pregnant by him, the film enters squik territory. And fine, I can take squik, but compounding this is the film's numerous segways, ranging from superfluous, highly styalzied flashbacks to a musical number at the end that feels more awkward than funny. I could imagine someone enjoying this, but I'm really not fond of this style of humour. I like the style that's presented at the start, but then it either loses its way, or starts trying too hard. As it went on, I just found myself waiting for it to end. At only 90 minutes it isn't too long, but it sure felt longer.

Total crap. At least the novel has a bit of a point, the movie's just a crapshoot of pop culture references and characters who are just as soulless as the characters the studio paid to use... or got paid to use? Like wtf is Tracer doing there so many times? The use of Atari 2600 in the end is an insult to common sense. Funny enough I'm giving the one extra point for i-r0k, the only character with any personality bar predictable trash. Also it's long as fuck.

And no Joust! What a bummer. The title means nothing in-universe either! C'mon!

Just like most Star Wars, I can't say this is good. Still better than the prequels. Better than the Force Awakens, because it wasn't a complete retelling of the story.

I really hoped they'd kill off the Jedis, as they are the literal worst, being no better than Siths. Disappointed on that mark. The Hyperspace attack looked pretty stunning. So was Ren trickery to gain the upper hand. The red guard weapons to defeat Lightsabers should have actually been done before now. Its pretty practical.Having the whole movie under the pump seemed like a big difference from Empire, until you realise its exactly like Empire. Pointless space ship chase through means of non-usable hyperdrive that covers most of a whole movie? Check. Escaping via transports? Check.Training for a couple of days before saving the day? Check. The good guys making the situation worse before a quick escape? Check. A dark side member of the family asking the light to join them? Check. Pointless and maddening parental plot twist? Check. (Screw you Ben Kenobi and your stupid points of view.)White planet for important battle? Check. (Although the white/red salt thing did at least look cool.)Being betrayed by a character we just met? Check.Sense of losing the battle? Check. (but they will fight on. Because plot)Staring into space while force communicating? Check. Expansion of Jedi powers? Check (which seems to be a bug bear for a lot of people from reading previous threads and I now find comical. Don't people remember when Vader forced choked someone from across the galaxy! That was insane back then but just par for the course now.) Which reminds me - force being used across the galaxy? check.

Look, I don't think its as much of a rehash as Force Awakens is. It is closer than I'd like. They even have "technology from the Death Star" which... screw you, entire Star Wars. Find something better than a Death Star.

Some interesting colorful imagery here and there for reasons, but that's about it, leading lady is where charisma goes to die. If you're 12, there's some deep commentary on social media, social pressures, or something. Could have been an interesting movie, imo, because I was expecting something more "mature" in the same way that the Final Destination and Saw movies are "mature". Instead, every challenge in the movie is lame and embarrassing. Fart next to people, eat dog food for points and money. Then in the end NOW KILL EACH OTHER. What? Fuck you, movie. Watch Ingrid Goes West instead if you want a movie with a social media is bad message.

Black Sea 6/10

Pretty solid movie about men in a submarine trying to find nazi gold. I don't know what else to say.

Xsjadoblayde:How it EndsConsidering I wouldn't have watched this if it didn't have Forest Whitaker in it, and considering the last two films I fell for the same trick were Taken 3 and Rogue One, I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't be so hasty to stalk him in this weird manner from now on. Perhaps the title of this, let's charitably call it a film, was secretly hinting at the dissolution of this sordid compulsion.

Within the first scene, being a simple conversation, it was apparent that this was not going to be a gripping masterclass in direction, but fine...its not wise to judge early and all that. We got ourselves a poor man's Paul Walker (who isn't particularly inspiring himself either) as the main protag who you'd see usually as an uninteresting side character in a low-effort TV series. We got a hint of something enjoyable when Forest is on screen, fuck knows what his character is called though, or anybody else, it's not important, actually not much is considered important for the viewer here. We got some vague problem that might be a countrywide EMP, might be aliens, might be the hand of an extremely bored and cunty God, it doesn't matter...what matters is that protag and Forest go on a journey to find protag's other half, oh and Forest is her dad I think; hijinks ensue! Except...they don't.

What happens instead is a load of meandering bollocks providing acute lessons in how to direct completely unexplained random events in the dullest method imaginable with the dullest character interaction imaginable. The hand of the extremely bored and cunty God throws in various weather and environmental hazards with all the threat of a malfunctioning fairground ghost-train ride. Humans are introduced and indiscriminately given the "bad" or "good" character reaction to our protag's slog. The film thinks that not explaining any of this makes it intriguing, but it's all so flat and dull with nothing and nobody to care about that the only reason I continued watching was to see what bullshit excuse they were going to come out with so that at least maybe I could get a laugh out of this trite. Toward the end, I was passionately expressing to my TV "just fucking tell me already! You've got nothing!...Nothiiiing! please give me something at least!"

And then it ends on some real laughably stupid unconvincing cgi shit.

Just before that point I had left the room for some food and drink in aimless resignation, so if the film had any wonderful revelation during my period of foraging, I could not care any less. There were far more interesting stories to be found in the fridge.

In total, it deserves a "What the hell, Forest?? Is money that bad for you?" Out of ten. Then again he did die unceremoniously halfway through, so evidently he knew better than me when to fold.

This one too. I didn't read all that but I'll just agree with you because I'm assuming you think the movie is complete shit. It's even worse here because the movie is called "NEXT STOP: APOCALYPSE" here, which is one of the worst movie titles I've seen in a long time. I don't know why I watched this shit.

Warm Bodies: I watched this when it was on TV a few weeks ago, I'd originally avoided it when it was described to me as "Twilight with zombies". And yeah, I can see that. What separates this from Twilight is that this has a sense of humour about itself and actually made me laugh a couple of times. The twist that zombies can be cured through interaction with humans (that isn't just eating them) and falling in love is a bit lame and the ending is pretty poor. Its not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but its not awful, 5 out of 10.

Deliver Us From Evil (7/10)Yet another demon possession movie, although this one just...feels different. This one got the advantage of me knowing precisely jack shit about it before watching it, but I like the overall tone of it. I actually wouldn't have watched it if I had known it was about demon possession, (dunno what I was expecting with the title, obviously), and the 'exorcism' climax was actually the part I enjoyed least, but the pacing and exposition, characterization is good and not too ambitious. I like how they meld police/detective work with uncovering killers. It stays pretty focused for the most part. Not your typical horror movie, (side characters don't fulfill the tropes that badly, except for the protagonist's family), not really gory at all except for some blood-stained characters, worth a watch if you're into this kind of movie, but tired of Ed & Lorraine Warren's escapades.

Fun fact: based on a real life experience of New York cop, Sarchie Ralph, who actually worked with Ed & Lorraine afterwards. According to wikipedia.

I have a low opinion of Deadpool 1, but I was pleasantly surprised by this one. I had two giant issues with the first one. First, Deadpool doesn't work well as a parody no matter how many times he breaks the fourth wall. For all his mockery of super-hero tropes, he still hits all the notes for one. It's like that kid that complains about the popular crowd, but then constantly imitates them. Second, Deadpool's humor was basically a white board that said "How would a 6th grader swear?" and "Crotch shots: All of them???"

It's kind of what I expected with this one, but they had a nice turnaround, albeit not one that went very far. The main character's humor got a LOT more clever for this one than it was for the first, so I enjoyed that it didn't just feel like a middle schooler trying to sound tough. Ryan Reynold's physical comedy and timing work a lot better than his quips, and it's good when they don't try to just rest on him trying to be clever. Deadpool the character is at his worst whenever he's being "Lolsorandom" and just throwing the word "cock" in front of another curse, so it's nice when the writers are clever enough to elevate him out of that.

The plot also got a nice update, being a little different from standard fare this time so they can poke fun at the genre without seeming like they desperately still want to be part of the club. Still, in the end, I docked points because it couldn't help but do that godawful comic book trope of "nothing of consequence actually happened in the movie".

While this film was better than I thought it was going to be, that's not to say it's "good." I suppose the question you have to ask is whether you want to see a film with in-depth characters and, ahem, "deep" themes, or whether you just want to see a giant shark eat people.

If you're here for the former, well, good luck with that. The characters are broader than the side of the barn, including, but not limited to, "jaded sea rescue guy," "hot marine biologist that falls for jaded sea rescue girl," "evil billionare that may not be evil but turns out to be evil guy," "token black guy," "lead scientist moralizing guy," "cute little girl character," "disgruntled doctor guy," and...yeah. I can go on, but you get the point. I mean, the characters are fine, I guess, but make no mistake, it's an action movie first. Even similar action films (see Fallen Kingdom) still managed more characterization than this. It also helps that the romance between the first two characters on that list is bereft of any real chemistry. It isn't bad, but it isn't needed either.

So, fair enough, what if you just want to see a meg eat people? Well, yeah, about that...it's okay. I mean, it isn't bad, but...okay, fun fact, evil billionaire guy says he's called in the navy to deal with it, only that's a lie (wants to take the beastie out himself), so our heroes have to deal with the meg by their lonesome, because no-one believes them when they DO try to contact the navy (bearing in mind that they're marine biologists working in a high-tech research lab, so I think governments might actually take them seriously). So instead of destroyer vs. shark action, we get less exciting action. Also, the meg's stopping power fluctuates a bit, and you know that beach in the trailers? Yeah, it barely does anything. It just swims in, just kind of hangs around, people spot it, and then it only gets a handful of people. This after already having the strength to turn boats over, among other things.

So, is the film "fun?" Yeah, I guess. I actually kinda like it more than Fallen Kingdom even, if only for the better action (while Fallen Kingdom has a better plot/theme/characters). But Jaws, this ain't. it isn't even The Shallows. And while it's not trying to be, it's a big budget B movie. Dive in, or not.

The Nun (2/10)Simultaneously tries to be a classy Gothic horror B movie and shitty internet-era jump-scare creepypasta garbage tied to The Conjuring Expanded Universe. Thanks for nothing, Marvel. So unredeemable they're not even trying to peddle it on Halloween.

Before we move on, I'm only going to call it BK for now, because that title has two Ks too many, even if the point is clear. The point of the film itself however? Not so much.

I thought I'd enjoy this film far more than I would, because not only is the premise intriguing, but it's arguably just as relevant now as it was back in the 70s. The film certainly wants you to believe that, but it does so in a ham-fisted way. But concerning the film itself, it focuses on the first black police officer of the Colardo Springs Police Department, who ends up becoming an undercover cop. First assignment is to attend a speech within the Black Students Union, to see if the speaker is to be deemed a threat. Next task is one he takes on by himself, contacting the Colorado Springs KKK chapter, posing as a white guy that hates everyone but whites, and gets invited. So, basically, he's the guy on the phone, while his colleague is the one that does the physical infiltrating. Yeah...I'm curious as to what really happened, because I can't believe the PD would sanction just randomly calling the KKK and having to do a double act. I mean, obviously this did happen, but, yeah. BTW, this film is fairly comedic, so this kind of thing plays into the absurdity of the premise. Not a comedy per se, but it's there. While the comedy works however, its themes...are iffy.

Course, themes are down to interpretation. I took my dad to the film as a father's day gift (he enjoyed it more than I did), and he had a different interpretation, so maybe it's just me. However, this is my review, not his, but our protagonist courts the president of the BSU, whose views are a bit, ahem, "black and white." 'All cops are racist pigs' sort of thing (no surprise he keeps his identity as a cop secret until towards the end). Now, the idea I got from the film is that it was espousing that race-based movements are inherently counter-productive, regardless of who's doing it. There's a scene towards the end where KKK members are yelling "white power, white power!" (with fists in the air), juxtaposing the scene with BSU members going "black power, black power" (again with fists). Thing is, I don't think you can draw any kind of moral equivalent with the KKK and BSU, as at least in the context of the film, the KKK is shown carrying out criminal acts over perceived injustices, while the BSU is facing real injustices. I agree with the idea that race-based movements aren't the way to go, and stating "all cops are racist" is wrong at best and counterproductive at worst, but the idea of drawing equivalency between the two groups doesn't work, because the film itself shows one group as being far worse than the other.

Also, there's the editing. There's a few cases where the editing/directing gets either hyper-styalized, or towards the end, where we cut to real-life footage of the Charlotsville riots and Trump (the film has "make America great again" as a line, and one cop states that the KKk is trying to get someone who represents their ideals into the White House). Again, I get the point, that America is still divided along race lines, but it's done ham-fistedly. Like, "here's some live action footage all of a sudden, make the connection." Well, yeah, I did make the connection. I made it at least an hour ago in the film. You could do it with more finesse than this.

So, yeah. Not a bad film by any means. But it could have been much better than how it turned out to be.

As someone who dug the Room, I was kinda looking forward to this. I haven't read the book so I don't know what's different or similar in terms of adaptation, but on its own, the film was just fine. The best positive I have for the film is James Franco; he really sells his performance as Tommy Wiseau. Other aspects are the first act is perfectly well done (except the way the film starts. That kinda felt self-indulgent to me.)

In terms of flaws, the direction is probably the worst part. Everything felt so standard and flat. One is the third act and especially the ending which kinda didn't work well personally. Also Tommy felt like the only character with depth to me.

How are the best mecha battles I've seen this year in a disney-esque kids movie? But keeping in mind it's a children's movie, I really like it. And by that, I mean it had some recurring jokes which may or may not hit home for older audiences, and overall a pretty cliche but heartwarming core story.

Antman and the Wasp. (6/10) I heard someone else say it was the TV version of an MCU movie. Which I now agree with. It was cool to see everyday items being blown up as a weapon. They're going back on good villains. Glad I didn't pay for this.